A review of E. Michael Jones’s The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit
Just before Christmas I finished reading your magnum opus, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. Thank you for giving us this incredible work of scholarship and unparalleled historical revisionism that has transformed the way I look at the world we live in. This must be one of the most controversial histories of any people ever written, depicting the tragic history of the Jews in rejecting Logos, the rational universal order personified in Jesus Christ, incorporating the earthly political and social order that He embodied in his human nature and the rejection of which constitutes the very badge of Jewish revolutionary identity and activity from that day to this.
JRS is characterised by calm discussion of the issues and its concise definition of terms, in particular the “Jew” as one who rejects Jesus Christ as the Messiah and your balance in placing this definition within the context of the seemingly endless debate about who the Jews are. In so doing, you simultaneously demolish the myth that the Jews of the Old Testament and the Jews of today are one and the same people, something which I never previously appreciated. I never understood the role of the Talmud in codifying the deliberations of the rabbinical debating society that Judaism as a man-made ideology became after the destruction of the Temple in AD70. Nor did I realise that the Catholic Church didn’t learn about the Talmud until 1236 when Nicholas Donin informed Pope Gregory IX of its existence.
The concise definitions of the two most misunderstood terms in contemporary cultural discourse – namely “the Jews” and “anti-Semitism” – are what makes JRS the counterrevolutionary tour de force that it is. Just as it shows how the meaning of the word “Jew” has changed from the beginning of the Gospels to the end, so it demonstrates that “anti-Semitism” doesn’t mean the same when it was used to denigrate the sincerity of conversions at the time of the Spanish Inquisition as it does today when used by people like Daniel Goldhagen whose denigration of Pope Pius XII inspired JRS. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to use the term “anti-Semitism” outside a post-Enlightenment setting precisely because it is a racial term and because as you point out the Middle Ages was a period within which racial thinking wouldn’t have been understood in the terms that it is today when it is so bound up with nationality.
One of the most acute ironies of history is that the two most distinguishing features of Jewish identity since the destruction of the Temple in AD70 – its revolutionary spirit and the sense of invincible racial superiority that motivated it and which received fresh impetus after Napoleon’s defeat – manifested themselves in the 1917 Bolshevik revolution when the revolutionary spirit reached its peak and the violent counter-revolutionary reaction that it unleashed in Hitler’s Nazism respectively. Regarding the latter, I would never have identified the origins of the term “master race” as being anywhere other than the Nazi propaganda machine of Hitler’s Germany. Yet JRS shows that the same sense of racial superiority as that asserted by the Jews when they boasted to Jesus that they were “the seed of Abraham” is both the flip side of Hitler’s anti-Semitism and its precedent in the Enlightenment Judaism of Moses Hess. How ironic that the Jewish Messianism of Hess who saw nationalism and socialism as inextricably linked would also find an uncanny parallel in Hitler’s version of the same thing as well as being the precursor of Zionism. The English comic genius Spike Milligan once said, “Money can’t buy you friends but it can get you a better class of enemy.” JRS proves that anti-Semitism won’t win you friends but it will make you a better class of racist because of the Jewish consciousness of being the master race means that those who oppose them attract more opprobrium than they would in opposing any other racial group.
As someone who has always taken the Message of Fatima very seriously, I found your comprehensive survey of Bolshevism and its Jewish roots an absolute revelation particularly Leon Trotsky’s pivotal role in the October 1917 revolution. Considering the Trotskyite antecedents of neoconservatism where accretions like permanent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are exchanged for the alternatives of the “war on terror” and “making the world safe for freedom and democracy”, I think that in the post-Cold War era this is one of the things that Our Lady could have meant when she said that Russia would spread its errors throughout the world.
I also wonder whether Our Lady chose Fatima as the place to appear to deliver her messages because it took its name from the name of the daughter of Mohammed, founder of Islam which has become a counter-revolutionary force against Jewish neoconservatism in the same way that Nazism was a counter-revolutionary force against Jewish Bolshevism. If so, this is an example and a reflection of the extent to which human nature is fallen that it is always the reaction to provocation rather than the provocation itself that is noticed. Correspondingly, it is always the sins of the counter-revolutionaries rather than the sins of those who started the revolution in the first place that are not just noticed but are recorded for historical posterity and their perpetrators made to look like the original villains of the peace. This is as true for Islam today just as it was for Nazism yesterday, notwithstanding the evils perpetrated by both. By appearing at Fatima in 1917 and saying what she did, was not Our Lady saying that the only counterrevolution that was/is bound to succeed in this world is that of Catholicism because it proposes loving our enemies and converting them to Christ rather than, as Nazism and Islam advocated, hating our enemies and killing them?
The chapters within JRS on American history, especially regarding the Black-Jewish Alliance, were very instructive about the Jewish Communist backers of Martin Luther King and about MLK himself. They certainly go a long way in explaining why the civil rights movement and MLK were (and continue to be) such an inspiration for the neoconservatives and why they have been the model upon which all movements promoting social justice – even among Catholics – have been based. I also had no idea about the role played by European Jews in enticing black Americans away from Christianity and towards revolution. Now the phenomenon of the white Negro about which Norman Mailer wrote makes more sense if one equates “white” with “Jewish” especially when one considers, for example, the Jewish origins of revolutionary music such as hip-hop. I thought that it was a pity, though, that you didn’t go into more detail regarding the founder of the Nation of Islam especially his Russian Jewish ancestry. It would also have been useful to have read more about the Nation of Islam, how it relates to the Black-Jewish Alliance and how it exemplifies how race and nation supplant religion and place as the basis of black culture in a way that post-Enlightenment Jewish revolutionaries would be proud to emulate. Could this have been the reason why, in the 1997 feature documentary on the 1974 World Heavyweight Boxing match between George Foreman and Muhammad Ali, the aforesaid white Jewish revolutionary Norman Mailer extols Nation of Islam member Ali returning into Africa to win the championship for “his people”?
As a Culture Wars subscriber writing from England, I found it very sobering to learn that Freemasonry was exported from here by the Whig government to continental Europe which certainly explains the English/Continental debate about which version of Masonry was the more subversive. As someone who was taught Whig history throughout his education in Catholic schools and colleges, I never appreciated the magnitude of just how radical was the impact of the Glorious Revolution in England nor how the revolutionary ideas that had become mainstream in England by 1789 would prove so devastating to the Catholic monarchy that was France. You also spell out that the notion that Freemasonry – the Judaized Christian version of cabbalistic Jewish mysticism – began with the foundation of the London Lodge in 1717 is itself Whig history that is designed to put a gloss on the impact of the 1688 Revolution just as much as the artificial debate about the alleged differences between English and Continental Freemasonry has been used as a pretext to perpetuate the teaching of Whig history in English educational institutions – including those under officially Catholic auspices – ever since.
The only disappointment in JRS is your treatment of Malachi Martin within the context of Vatican II because of its excessive reliance on the emotionally-charged memoirs of Robert Kaiser in his 2002 book “Clerical Error”. This is not to question what is alleged by Kaiser in blaming Martin for the break-up of his marriage but rather to point out that documentary evidence has since been unearthed on the traditionalist side by John Grasmeier of angelqueen.org which is primary source evidence for Martin’s involvement with the American Jewish Committee/Anti-Defamation League. It can be found at http://angelqueen.org/articles/07_06_martin_ajc_connection.shtml. I read Martin’s book The Jesuits in 1987 shortly after graduating in theology. Written under the old Cold War rules of engagement as a critique of Jesuit support for liberation theology from the former National Review religion editor that Martin was, it stands as a classic piece of what might today be regarded as anti-Communist crusade literature particularly in its outspoken criticism of the 1962 Rome-Moscow Agreement and also by its dedication to Our Lady of Fatima.
Indeed I maintain that it is impossible to see the 1962 Rome-Moscow Agreement which is described in detail in The Jesuits in isolation from Nostra Aetate which is not mentioned at all in that book. This is especially true when one remembers that Bolshevism was Jewish in inspiration. Furthermore did it not suit Martin to highlight the compromise between the Catholic Church and Communism which the Rome-Moscow Agreement brokered as it bolstered his claim to traditionalist credentials in opposing liberation theology and by extension the Communist incursion – as he saw it - into the life of the Church? By emphasising the Rome-Moscow Agreement and completely ignoring Nostra Aetate – which both in their different ways manifested the Church’s drawbridge being lowered in the face of the Jewish revolutionary spirit and its colonisation of modernity – he deflected attention away from his support for Jewish interests which manifested itself in his choice of publisher Simon and Schuster and also from how Nostra Aetate effectively undermined the traditional Catholic teaching on the Jews. Martin was the quintessential Catholic religious neoconservative who blazed a trail that would later be emulated by the likes of his contemporaries such as Michael Novak and then followed by George Weigel and the late Father Richard John Neuhaus though the former two are unlikely to ever acknowledge this fact.
Taken on their own, however, I think that your chapters on the Second Vatican Council are well worth the price of the book all by themselves. You decisively prove that Vatican II was a battle over whose view of Jewish identity would become normative in the modern era in Church and world – that of the Catholic Church which had traditionally taught that to be a Jew was to be a rejecter of Christ or that of modernity which hails race as the new religion and correspondingly and exclusively identifies Jewishness in terms of blood, race and DNA, the very outlook denounced by Jesus himself in St John’s Gospel.
The combination of the Jewish consciousness of being the Chosen People together with the incorporation of the racial concept of anti-Semitism into Nostra Aetate and the inadequate definition of the same within that document left the door open for all the enemies of Christ to regard ALL criticism of Jews as anti-Semitic especially attempts to convert Jews to Christianity.
JRS cogently traces the historical trajectory of how anti-Semitism has virtually ceased to be used to describe somebody who doesn’t like Jews but used instead to defame someone whom the Jews don’t like and how the Jewish lobby used Hochhuth’s play in a failed attempt to bully the Council Fathers into passing a schema on the Jews that completely exonerated all Jews of deicide in rejecting Christ. If in the wake of “The Deputy” this lead to Pope Pius XII who saved Jews being regarded as at least as much an anti-Semite as Adolf Hitler who killed them, it therefore makes no difference whether or not a Jew accepts Christ or rejects Him he will still be saved, not by the supernatural grace of baptism but by the superiority and purity of his DNA.
JRS is the most important book that I have ever read on any subject in my life. Not only have you shown how irrational is rationalism and how revolutions are more likely to be engineered by the rich from positions of power than they are to be spontaneously initiated by the weak from the grass-roots but you have dismantled the machinery of modernity and shown me exactly how it works. From a young age I always wondered about the impact of the death of Our Lord on the cross upon the unfolding and the shaping of history but could never find any history textbook that could even acknowledge, let alone articulate, the impact of the rejection of Christ as Messiah upon all that has happened subsequently in the history of the world. This amazing book has answered all my questions. Long may it continue to change hearts and minds.
Stephen M. Smith writes from England.
This review appears in the Letters section of the June, 2011 issue of Culture Wars.
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones. Jews for Jesus versus Jews against Jesus; Christians versus Christians versus Jews. This book is the story of such contests played out over 2000 turbulent years. In his most ambitious work, Dr. E. Michael Jones provides a breathtaking and controversial tour of history from the Gospels to the French Revolution to Neoconservatism and the “End of History.” $48 + S&H, Hardback. [In ordering for shipment outside the U.S., the book's price will appear higher to offset increased shipping charges.] Read Reviews
Culture Wars •